Wir sollten endlich ernsthaft darüber debattieren, ob wir die AfD verbieten müssen. Und jetzt reden wir stattdessen darüber, denen die Unterstützung zu entziehen, die sie am stärksten bekämpfen.
We are pleased to announce the release of Volume 5 of the Handbook of Labor Economics, edited by Christian Dustmann and Thomas Lemieux.
To collect income taxes, almost all countries require employers to withhold monthly tax prepayments which are then fully credited against the final income tax liabilities of their employees. Despite being a fundamental component of income taxation systems worldwide, the impact of these withholding taxes on labor supply is poorly understood. We investigate their importance in the context of married couples in Germany where the withholding tax liability can be redistributed between spouses. We exploit a reform that reduced the withholding tax for some married women more than for others, while inducing no differences in income taxes. Using administrative data for the full population of German taxpayers, we estimate an elasticity of labor income with respect to the withholding tax eight years after the reform of 0.14. Additional evidence from a self-conducted survey suggests imperfect understanding of the tax system and limited pooling of resources within the household as the main mechanisms. As the majority of couples shift parts of the withholding tax liability from the husband to the wife, our results suggest that the increased withholding tax liability of married women contributes to their low labor supply. This highlights the need for governments to be aware of the distortion of labor supply incentives when the design of withholding taxes does not match actual income tax incentives.
Hello #EconSky!
📢Excited to share my #JMP 📢
It provides a missing piece to understand how people react to income taxation.
Tldr: By changing tax pre-payments governments can - with almost no costs - increase perceived work incentives of secondary earners and reduce the gender gap.
Thread below👇🧵
A couple of pics from my (cold!) week at @iza.org, thanks @ingoisphording.bsky.social and @demirecon.bsky.social!
Even if it seems "absurd" to us that people wouldn’t fight against inequality, listening closely shows they may have valid subjective reasons. These people must not be demonized; rather, we must understand them. Otherwise, we leave the field to the populists.
We must understand why people are skeptical about migration, gender equality, or climate protection. Example: rural workers who rely on cars feel policies as obstacles, as driving becomes more difficult without improving alternatives like trains.
A new vision must address four areas of inequality (per Mau, Lux, Westheuser 2023): poverty and wealth, migration, diversity and gender, and climate protection. We can’t just continue as before.
For workers in precarious jobs, this feels remote and elitist. They seek a basic improvement in their situation first. Politics must take these realities seriously rather than advancing the utopias of a privileged class.
Voting behavior often shows that only “utopian politics” resonates – policies for those already secure. Those with a good job, healthy parents, and stable surroundings can engage in progressive issues like identity politics.
Why minimum wage, health care, affirmative action? Because we want a society that includes everyone and cares for the vulnerable. Politics should think collectively and emphasize this vision in every policy – not just every four years in election programs.
People's thinking is malleable; they are open to new ideas. We must engage them, rather than leave them to populists. Liberal-democratic parties often get caught up in policy details – it’s essential to keep the big picture clear:
(science.org/doi/full/10.11…)
Can we blame people for longing for a time when each generation did better than the last? We must understand them.
By empathetic politics, I mean understanding, not condemning, those who turn to populists. Research shows the devastating impact of job loss due to technological change or globalization. Even those who keep their jobs face challenges, as absolute income mobility has declined
The policies of past decades could have been different. Daron Acemoglu's (@DAcemogluMIT ) books highlight how inclusive policies are possible, where workers, companies, and the state make decisions together. Things can be done differently. (e.g., amazon.com/Power-Progress…)
Workers without a college degree marry less and divorce more; increasing assortative mating also deepens income inequality: aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…
Job loss harms health and increases mortality: sciencedirect.com/science/articl
Simply compensating those who have lost jobs with money may not suffice. Employment holds a psycho-social value: aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…
Job loss reduces fertility:
Automation can lead to job losses: journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.108…
Globalization in Germany has especially harmed lower-income workers:
According to this principle, most would agree: much remains to be done. Who would want to be in the shoes of a factory worker who loses their job, identity, and possibly family and health due to technological change or trade?
Philosophical principles: Consider the simple idea of the "veil of ignorance" (John Rawls) – a decision-making situation where we choose the structure of society without knowing our position within it.
Our liberal-democratic order needs a new vision and a new promise. This vision requires philosophical principles, empathetic politics, and a clear goal for the society of tomorrow. What exactly do I mean? A thread 🧵:
Auch wenn es "uns" absurd erscheint, sich nicht gegen Ungleichheit einzusetzen, zeigt genaues Hinhören, dass es subjektiv gute Gründe geben kann. Diese Menschen dürfen nicht dämonisiert werden; im Gegenteil, wir müssen sie verstehen, sonst überlassen wir das Feld den Populisten.
Wir müssen verstehen, warum Menschen Migration, Geschlechtergerechtigkeit oder Klimaschutz skeptisch sehen. Beispiel: Arbeiter*innen auf dem Land, die aufs Auto angewiesen sind, empfinden Politik als Hindernis, da das Autofahren gefühlt erschwert wird. Alternativen (Bahn) subopt.
Eine neue Vision muss vier Arenen der Ungleichheit adressieren und dabei alle Menschen mitnehmen (nach Mau, Lux, Westheuser 2023): Armut und Reichtum, Migration, Diversität und Gender sowie Klimaschutz. Es reicht nicht, wie bisher weiterzumachen.
Für Arbeiter*innen in prekären Jobs wirkt das weltfremd und elitär. Sie wollen zuerst eine Verbesserung ihrer Grundsituation. Politik muss diese Lebensrealitäten ernst nehmen, statt die Utopien einer privilegierten Schicht zu fördern.
Das Wahlverhalten zeigt oft, dass bei vielen Menschen nur „utopische Politik“ hängen bleibt – Politik für diejenigen, die bereits abgesichert sind. Wer einen gut bezahlten Job, gesunde Eltern und ein stabiles Umfeld hat, kann sich progressive Themen wie Identitätspolitik leisten.
Warum Mindestlohn, Kurzarbeit, Gleichstellung? Weil wir eine Gesellschaft wollen, die alle mitnimmt und sich um Schwächere kümmert. Politik sollte gemeinschaftlich denken, und die Vision bei jeder politischen Maßnahme betonen– nicht nur alle vier Jahre im Wahlprogramm.
Das Denken der Menschen ist formbar, sie sind offen für neue Ideen. Wir müssen sie abholen, statt sie Populisten zu überlassen. Freiheitlich-demokratische Parteien verstricken sich oft in politischen Details – dabei muss stets klar sein, worum es geht:
Wollen wir es den Menschen verübeln, wenn sie sich eine Zeit zurückwünschen, in der es ihnen von Generation zu Generation besser ging als ihren Eltern? Wir müssen sie verstehen.
Auch jene, die ihren Job behalten, sehen Herausforderungen. Bspw. ist die absolute Einkommensmobilität gesunken ist (z.B. in den USA: science.org/doi/full/10.11…)
Unter empathischer Politik verstehe ich, Menschen, die sich Populisten zuwenden, nicht zu verurteilen, sondern zu verstehen. Die Forschung zeigt, wie verheerend Arbeitsplatzverluste durch z.B. technologischen Wandel oder Globalisierung sein können.